QuoteI ain't touching this lol.I could see the appeal
I ain't touching this lol.
Quote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 02:35:50 PMQuoteI ain't touching this lol.I could see the appealBrutes have an appeal?
Quote from: Avatar Korra on August 01, 2014, 02:37:36 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 02:35:50 PMQuoteI ain't touching this lol.I could see the appealBrutes have an appeal?hell yea, all dat fur.....
Quote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 02:38:27 PMQuote from: Avatar Korra on August 01, 2014, 02:37:36 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 02:35:50 PMQuoteI ain't touching this lol.I could see the appealBrutes have an appeal?hell yea, all dat fur.....fig
>Le space drive>Mfw
Quote from: Sandtrap on August 01, 2014, 02:20:40 PMQuote from: Avatar Korra on August 01, 2014, 02:18:50 PMQuote from: DemonicChronic on August 01, 2014, 12:32:27 PMOne step closer to making contact and inevitably tapping that hot alien ass.Or an overzealous alien alliance comes to tap our asses.Give or take, as long as it's pretty, you can bet your ass somebody's gun git fucked silly. I ain't touching this lol.
Quote from: Avatar Korra on August 01, 2014, 02:18:50 PMQuote from: DemonicChronic on August 01, 2014, 12:32:27 PMOne step closer to making contact and inevitably tapping that hot alien ass.Or an overzealous alien alliance comes to tap our asses.Give or take, as long as it's pretty, you can bet your ass somebody's gun git fucked silly.
Quote from: DemonicChronic on August 01, 2014, 12:32:27 PMOne step closer to making contact and inevitably tapping that hot alien ass.Or an overzealous alien alliance comes to tap our asses.
One step closer to making contact and inevitably tapping that hot alien ass.
got this from neoGAF so I might as well copy paste most of it http://sploid.gizmodo.com/nasa-revea...e-t-1614549987QuoteUntil yesterday, everyone in the international community was laughing at this engine and its inventor, Roger Sawyer. It's called the EmDrive and everyone said it was impossible because it went against the laws of physics. But the fact is that the quantum vacuum plasma thruster works in the lab and scientists can't explain why.Basically it gives us the ability to have fuel-less engines in space, we would no longer be limited by fuel limitations in terms of space travel. We could keep them on and keep going faster and faster, a trip to mars could take a week instead of 6 months.NASA doesnt know why it works, its troll science, but they were able to replicate it like the Chinese did. Its reality but we dont know why.a new age is cumming, more links 4 proof http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052http://emdrive.com/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-drive
Until yesterday, everyone in the international community was laughing at this engine and its inventor, Roger Sawyer. It's called the EmDrive and everyone said it was impossible because it went against the laws of physics. But the fact is that the quantum vacuum plasma thruster works in the lab and scientists can't explain why.
Quote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 12:11:55 PMgot this from neoGAF so I might as well copy paste most of it http://sploid.gizmodo.com/nasa-revea...e-t-1614549987QuoteUntil yesterday, everyone in the international community was laughing at this engine and its inventor, Roger Sawyer. It's called the EmDrive and everyone said it was impossible because it went against the laws of physics. But the fact is that the quantum vacuum plasma thruster works in the lab and scientists can't explain why.Basically it gives us the ability to have fuel-less engines in space, we would no longer be limited by fuel limitations in terms of space travel. We could keep them on and keep going faster and faster, a trip to mars could take a week instead of 6 months.NASA doesnt know why it works, its troll science, but they were able to replicate it like the Chinese did. Its reality but we dont know why.a new age is cumming, more links 4 proof http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052http://emdrive.com/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-driveIs there a limit on the exponential increase to propulsion over time? Other than the speed of light that is.
Quote from: Crouton on August 01, 2014, 03:21:27 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 12:11:55 PMgot this from neoGAF so I might as well copy paste most of it http://sploid.gizmodo.com/nasa-revea...e-t-1614549987QuoteUntil yesterday, everyone in the international community was laughing at this engine and its inventor, Roger Sawyer. It's called the EmDrive and everyone said it was impossible because it went against the laws of physics. But the fact is that the quantum vacuum plasma thruster works in the lab and scientists can't explain why.Basically it gives us the ability to have fuel-less engines in space, we would no longer be limited by fuel limitations in terms of space travel. We could keep them on and keep going faster and faster, a trip to mars could take a week instead of 6 months.NASA doesnt know why it works, its troll science, but they were able to replicate it like the Chinese did. Its reality but we dont know why.a new age is cumming, more links 4 proof http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052http://emdrive.com/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-driveIs there a limit on the exponential increase to propulsion over time? Other than the speed of light that is.The limit is the amount of energy you use to increase the thrust force. As far as I know, when something is flying through space, it doesn't just simply speed up out of the blue. Over time, I believe there is a gradual increase, but this is extremely slow. In order to go faster, an object needs more of an opposing force to push it along. But as long as an object keeps going without being disturbed, it will keep going.So, really, we're still at the same level here. In order to make a satellite go any faster with this engine, assuming it works, you'd need a power plant on board. And if there's a power plant, there's a limit to how much electricity it can generate, effectively capping the speed of the satellite.Of course, this could be overcome by something else. Giving the satellite an enormous burst of power at launch. And the only way to do that would be to hook it up to a space elevator and launch it from the very top, so that you wouldn't have to fight gravity so hard and the boost from having all the power dumped into the engine wouldn't be wasted.
Quote from: Sandtrap on August 01, 2014, 04:05:57 PMQuote from: Crouton on August 01, 2014, 03:21:27 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on August 01, 2014, 12:11:55 PMgot this from neoGAF so I might as well copy paste most of it http://sploid.gizmodo.com/nasa-revea...e-t-1614549987QuoteUntil yesterday, everyone in the international community was laughing at this engine and its inventor, Roger Sawyer. It's called the EmDrive and everyone said it was impossible because it went against the laws of physics. But the fact is that the quantum vacuum plasma thruster works in the lab and scientists can't explain why.Basically it gives us the ability to have fuel-less engines in space, we would no longer be limited by fuel limitations in terms of space travel. We could keep them on and keep going faster and faster, a trip to mars could take a week instead of 6 months.NASA doesnt know why it works, its troll science, but they were able to replicate it like the Chinese did. Its reality but we dont know why.a new age is cumming, more links 4 proof http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140006052http://emdrive.com/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...le-space-driveIs there a limit on the exponential increase to propulsion over time? Other than the speed of light that is.The limit is the amount of energy you use to increase the thrust force. As far as I know, when something is flying through space, it doesn't just simply speed up out of the blue. Over time, I believe there is a gradual increase, but this is extremely slow. In order to go faster, an object needs more of an opposing force to push it along. But as long as an object keeps going without being disturbed, it will keep going.So, really, we're still at the same level here. In order to make a satellite go any faster with this engine, assuming it works, you'd need a power plant on board. And if there's a power plant, there's a limit to how much electricity it can generate, effectively capping the speed of the satellite.Of course, this could be overcome by something else. Giving the satellite an enormous burst of power at launch. And the only way to do that would be to hook it up to a space elevator and launch it from the very top, so that you wouldn't have to fight gravity so hard and the boost from having all the power dumped into the engine wouldn't be wasted.I believe this was done on the Simpsons, I'm down for operation elevator music.
Quote from: Sandtrap on August 01, 2014, 02:03:04 PMFrom the article itself. "Shawyer's engine is extremely light and simple." They wouldn't drop that line in the article for no reason. Simplicity implies that by current standards, the concept of the engine is simple to understand, and therefore simple to reproduce. Hell, you can create plasma in your microwave by microwaving fire. Don't do that though.And don't give me that it's economical stuff either. The fuel economy for a lot of vehicles today is rather poor. Big companies don't care if it's economical, they care about how much money they can generate. And poor economical vehicles is one avenue of income. And it's like a big board game to them. If and when that engine gets off the ground, it won't be released until everybody is good and ready. It won't ever be buried completely, but it'll be kept in a waiting line until they can make the maximum amount of profit while losing as little as possible.Simple doesn't mean cheap. That's a false assumption. But it's best to stop arguing over what it would cost when neither of us have that information available to us.Being economical means making a profit. A company absolutely cares if it's making a profit. You're right, gas guzzling cars sell because they're popular. It's cheap to produce for the company, but the customer will pay a heavy cost to maintain it. If NASA wants to get into space, they're going to try and cut costs wherever they can. If an engine requires no fuel (the biggest cost factor) then they would probably use it (so long as it's just as safe and powerful).
From the article itself. "Shawyer's engine is extremely light and simple." They wouldn't drop that line in the article for no reason. Simplicity implies that by current standards, the concept of the engine is simple to understand, and therefore simple to reproduce. Hell, you can create plasma in your microwave by microwaving fire. Don't do that though.And don't give me that it's economical stuff either. The fuel economy for a lot of vehicles today is rather poor. Big companies don't care if it's economical, they care about how much money they can generate. And poor economical vehicles is one avenue of income. And it's like a big board game to them. If and when that engine gets off the ground, it won't be released until everybody is good and ready. It won't ever be buried completely, but it'll be kept in a waiting line until they can make the maximum amount of profit while losing as little as possible.
um.... holy shit?
